<p>all that vacation time…his last book he talked about, my Ds had to read in 8th grade, but hey…</p>
<p>
.</p>
<p>funding father made this statement before about the libs unfailing belief in the Bush “lies”.
These last two statements provide more evidence of such. If it doesn’t agree with your world view, then make something up!</p>
<p>Well certain liberals on this board have often made things up or took information out of context like the quote by barbara bush, bushs intelligence, and how much bush reads. Also I have began to notice that alot of the links these same liberals provide in this discussion other discussions etc are from very obscure websites and sources. And maybe these people will claim that they read these sources because they cant trust the established media, but the difference between the established media and the “obsucre sites” is that fox news and cnn are held accountable by the people. Remember what happened when dan rathers made up information? His news program and channel was held accountable by millions of viewers, stockholder etc…The same rule does not apply to the websites these liberals use on these boards to trash america</p>
<p>What I like about George Bush is that though he parrots an anti-gay line, he hires gay-friendly staff. I just saw Condi Rice hug a new gay appointee, and then refer to the appointee’s partner’s mother as the appointee’s MOTHER-IN-LAW. </p>
<p>A gay wedding celebrated on TV news!</p>
<p>George Bush is not anti-gay he is anti- gay marriage. There is obviously a distinction</p>
<p>Thank you, golani.
That is a distinction an amazing number of people can’t seem to comprehend (or pretend not to). ;)</p>
<p>But-but-but–a mother-in-law? How can anyone in his cabinet condone that kind of “arrangement”?</p>
<p>FAP, you’re right. GWB has had several gay individuals appointed to important positions in his administration. Who was the one to whom you’re referring tonight? I missed that.</p>
<p>Golani, I think it CAN be a distinction but it is not always an obvious one. . It’s also a distinction which eludes many Republicans, which has been evidenced over the years when GWB has made the appointments, and when similar cases have arisen across the country, and have garnered much criticism and opposition. </p>
<p>I think this may be one of those issues where GWB is pacifying his most conservative supporters, as has been discussed in the news for the past couple of days. Privately, I’m not convinced that he has a problem with gay marriage, and I know for a fact that his daughters have attended a gay wedding, which I’m sure their father knew about.</p>
<p>It’s obvious if people want to acknowledge it’s obvious. It does not work in gay (and other) activists’ favor to acknowledge the distinction, however.
Do any of us want to control what our children do when they’re over 21, or even over 18? Could we even if we wanted to? I believe the Bush daughters are of age.
Re the news the last couple of days: I have heard that a theocracy in the USA is NOT imminent!</p>
<p>always–</p>
<p>Here’s an excerpt from ABC news tonight: </p>
<p>""But while the president has openly admonished gay marriage, others in the administration have seemed perfectly accepting of such unions.</p>
<p>This week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in AIDS czar Dr. Mark Dybul, who is openly gay. His partner, Jason Claire, held the Bible.</p>
<p>With first lady Laura Bush looking on approvingly, Rice singled out Claire as Dybul’s partner and referred to Claire’s mother as Dybul’s mother-in-law. </p>
<p>“You have wonderful family to support you, Mark,” Rice said.“”</p>
<p>I also don’t think that Bush has any problem with gays, but it was a stance he took to win votes. Oh, is this coming back to bite them with the book of a disgruntled evangelical! Quote: </p>
<p>“” Kuo, who worked in the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives, “says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as ‘the nuts.’ National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy.’”“”</p>
<p>Again you people are failing to make the distinction. Just because Bush appoints gay people to public office does not mean he supports gay marriage. He simply thinks that these are good people who are qualified for the job. He can call them wahtever he wants mother-law, fatherw in law etc… but that does not mean he wants them to marry. Likewise, Bush does not have to hate gays to not want them to marry. I do not want gays marrying, but I do not hate them.</p>
<p>Thank you, farawayplaces. I hadn’t seen the story about Dr. Dybul. It’s a nice one.</p>
<p>HH, I think you missed my point that it is not always an obvious distinction. The Bush administration has had several gay appointees right from the start of the first term, however, from the actions of many Republicans, especially as evidenced over the years by reaction when these, and similar, appointments are made, it’s obvious that it isn’t only the issue of gay marriage which many oppose. Here are a couple of examples for you:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8147-2001Apr11?language=printer[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8147-2001Apr11?language=printer</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/18/iowa_governor_weighs_fight_on_gay_appointee/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/18/iowa_governor_weighs_fight_on_gay_appointee/</a></p>
<p>My point about the daughters was not that parents control what their children do, nor was it the daughters’ ages, it was that they attended a gay wedding and if you don’t think that that involves tacit approval from the WH, then you’re mistaken.</p>
<p>golani, none of us knows exactly how GWB feels privately on this topic. I am speculating based on his willingness to involve several gay individuals in his administration, despite the hateful opposition which many of those appointees have garnered from conservative Republicans. I’m glad to hear that you don’t “hate them”. Do you approve of civil partnerships, rather than marriage?</p>
<p>FS,
I wasn’t ignoring your question - I’ve just been really busy and haven’t had time to respond. </p>
<p>Just like Allmusic, I voted for Reagan. I was a casual voter and tended to vote like many voters do with little information and general belief in a party system. I come from a staunchly Republican family and tended to vote that way. I think it’s quite common to vote as your family did and more uncommon to actually change your voting pattern over time. The first Democrat I voted for was Bill Clinton. My pattern changed for many reasons - being married to a diehard Democrat, living in a predominantly Democratic state and growing up enough to understand that tax dollars actually benefit all. Sure they can be mispent but as we’ve all seen they are mispent by both parties. Minnesota is a high tax state but the benefits of those high taxes are evident compared to nearby midwest states. We have beautiful public parks everywhere and enviable public schools. It’s not perfect but it’s a much better place to live than my home state of Missouri, a more conservative state when it comes to taxation.</p>
<p>No i do not approve of civil partnerships either, only because if gay people can have a civil partnership than straight people would want a partnership too and that woululd lead to a breakdown in marriage</p>
<p>So, let me get this straight (pun intended), you believe that gay couples should pay taxes and be good citizens, but they shouldn’t be entitled to benefits in the workplace that heterosexual couples are entitled to, that they shouldn’t have rights surrounding medical care decisions for each other, that they shouldn’t have the right to access and visitation if one is hospitalized, that they shouldn’t have the right to determine property rights and to specify ‘who gets what’ when they die. These are the types of issues which are routine set out in civil partnership agreements. You may not “hate them” but you sure don’t see to like them much.</p>
<p>Your contention that a breakdown in marriage would follow, if gay people were allowed to celebrate their love and relationships in a civil ceremony, is based on what? This is fear-mongering at its worst. As I pointed out in a previous discussion, gay marriage in Canada has not caused any marriage to be threatened as a result. I’m still curious how exactly heterosexual marriage is threatened in any way by people having the right to celebrate, and commit to, a loving relationship. Personally, I think heterosexuals do a fine job all by themselves of making a mockery of marriage every single day, without any help whatsoever by the gay community.</p>
<p>I think that any kind of people should be able to sign a contract that will alow another person hospital visitation rites etc…i dont think it sohuld be a civil union. Because if two gay guys get a civil union why not let to to straight people get a civil union too. That way they are sorta married with the real committment to being married. I do not think its fair that you say I do not like gay people. I think this is one of the problems with you liberals. Whenever you cannot find logic to argue with someone you make them out to be a racist or a sexist or someone who doesnt like gay people because if you say I do not like gay people then that takes out the credibility in my argument. So I challenge you. I challenge you to provide me any indication of what I said that would point to me not liking gay people. If you do find something, and this somehing is a real indication of me not liking gays, then I promise to never post here again, but by the same token if you fail to show how i dislike gay people than you should never post here again? Sound fair?</p>
<p>Golani, are you aware that you use the term “you liberals” in exactly the way you accuse those “liberals” of using the terms “racist” or “sexist”? </p>
<p>And to respond to your statement, what makes you think that a couple in a “civil union” would lack the “real commitment” of being married?</p>
<p>golani, that’s the problem! It has proven difficult to have those rights honored. In actuality, heterosexuals form civil unions through civil ceremonies, although they are, indeed, called marriages. Not everyone gets married in a church. There is also the situation of common-law unions, where certain rights are guaranteed for heterosexual couples but not for gay couples. Even for those who marry in the church, marriage is no guarantee of a commitment. The terrible statistics for divorce are excellent evidence of that. The success of having contracts to cover the issues I mentioned not meeting with difficulties is slim. There are issues like this contested by families on a regular basis. I know because I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. An acceptance of civil unions would eliminate many of these problems.</p>
<p>If it’s not possible for gay couples to ensure these rights because people object to civil unions, then it’s, in my opinion, a good sign that the opponents don’t like gay people very much. I think that argument is logical. You say you like gay people, yet you don’t want to allow them to be in the type of enshrined relationships which would allow them to guarantee their rights. </p>
<p>I have no interest of asking ANYone here not to post again, and I have no intention of making such a silly agreement. How old are you? I’m getting the impression that you are very young, which in and of itself is not a problem at all, but it could explain some of the things that you post. Still waiting to hear how it will cause a breakdown in marriage.</p>
<p>golani:
I guess you like ‘gays’, but don’t want them to have the same rights as straight. So my question is: “In what way do you ‘like’ them?”</p>
<p>so you feel that if someone is against gay civil unions they do not like gay people? Expalain to me how. </p>
<p>“I guess you like ‘gays’, but don’t want them to have the same rights as straight. So my question is: “In what way do you ‘like’ them?”” I like them or dislike them in the same way i would dislike or like a straight person. To answer your question in what way do you like gay people, let me ask you this question, in what way do you like straight people? The two answers should be the same.</p>
<p>If straight people get a civil union, that is they come and sign a contract for themselves to get certain rights, yet they do not call their partnership a marriage it will become a convinient alternative to the true commitments of marriage- mongomy, having children, raising a family etc. So what can happen is that two people who like to have sex, sign a paper for some monetary and other kind of rights and then they carry on and do whatever they want. I, personally, feel that some of these rights should be granted to anyone regardless of maritial or sexual status. Just because there is a problem with divorces in America does not somehow provide the argument for gays to marry or make a partnerships. Also there is the problem if you allow gays to marry why not allow polygamy, bigamy, beastiality, insectous relationships and even marriages, etc</p>